dead Queen Elizabeth II

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,337]

44 minutes ago, Windsor said:

No. I think he will be a good transitional king. 
 

Most of the commonwealth with probably ditch the monarchy when the Queen passes so essentially he is going to take a lot of the historical flak for that even though it’s not necessarily his fault.

 

I think he will reign roughly 5 years and wouldn’t be surprised if he abdicates.

 

He hasn’t been that bad of a public servant. The worst he did was have an affair and an opinion. 

 

Why do you think the monarchy will die with William?

[Bibliogryphon 9,568]

6 hours ago, Windsor said:

No. I think he will be a good transitional king. 
 

Most of the commonwealth with probably ditch the monarchy when the Queen passes so essentially he is going to take a lot of the historical flak for that even though it’s not necessarily his fault.

 

I think he will reign roughly 5 years and wouldn’t be surprised if he abdicates.

 

He hasn’t been that bad of a public servant. The worst he did was have an affair and an opinion. 

 

I am put in mind of the Horrible Histories George IV song

 

"As true King my Reign began,

Though I was now older than your Nan"

[frleon 138]

22 hours ago, Windsor said:

I’ll most likely be a Republican after Charles dies.

 

So there are still miracles in the world? Miracles and hope!

[Windsor 2,233]

6 hours ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

Why do you think the monarchy will die with William?

He wants to be normal. 
 

You can’t be King and an average Joe. That’s when monarchy does become pointless…like all those Europeans. 
 

[TQR 14,384]

16 minutes ago, Windsor said:

That’s when monarchy does become pointless

What purpose does it serve now?

[Windsor 2,233]

21 minutes ago, TQR said:

What purpose does it serve now?

 

It reminds you where your place is.

[TQR 14,384]

23 minutes ago, Windsor said:

 

It reminds you where your place is.

Yep. A backwards shithole country.

[Bibliogryphon 9,568]

I have said this before but Republicans need to start having the conversation now about the future of the monarchy because their voices will be drowned out in an orgy of nationalistic eulogising when the Queen dies

[roaming_comrade 471]

3 minutes ago, Bibliogryphon said:

I have said this before but Republicans need to start having the conversation now about the future of the monarchy because their voices will be drowned out in an orgy of nationalistic eulogising when the Queen dies

No, the Queen will die, there will be a period of mourning and reminiscence and then after a few months the first questions will start

[Bibliogryphon 9,568]

14 minutes ago, roaming_comrade said:

No, the Queen will die, there will be a period of mourning and reminiscence and then after a few months the first questions will start

After the state funeral there will probably be six months of documentaries non-critically examining her 70+ year reign which will then take us to a Coronation planning period. The establishment will keep the royalty plates spinning as long as it is I theor interest to do so

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,337]

3 hours ago, TQR said:

Yep. A backwards shithole country.

Some of the countries in the developed world  most lauded for their modernity, forward thinking ,liberal values,  egalitarianism etc are monarchies.  I give you Denmark,  The Netherlands  and Sweden. 

That may suggest that it's not monarchy  itself that is the inhibiting factor  in terms of holding us back or being backwards as you put it?

[TQR 14,384]

8 minutes ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

Some of the countries in the developed world  most lauded for their modernity, forward thinking ,liberal values,  egalitarianism etc are monarchies.  I give you Denmark,  The Netherlands  and Sweden. 

That may suggest that it's not monarchy  itself that is the inhibiting factor  in terms of holding us back or being backwards as you put it?

Monarchies are backwards, unjust and unnecessary, even when they exist in more forward thinking countries, though I suppose the emotive language I used was more aimed at the typically backwards views of an embarrassing portion of the British public that were demonstrated perfectly by Windsock there.

 

It’s healthy to question things in the name of fairness, and it’s authoritarian, oppressive and, as I said, backwards, to brush it off with a “know your place” or similar bullshit. The ‘B’ word is another perfect example. No actual answers when questioned, just brusque, unintelligible, platitudinous retorts.

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,337]

2 hours ago, TQR said:

Monarchies are backwards, unjust and unnecessary, even when they exist in more forward thinking countries, though I suppose the emotive language I used was more aimed at the typically backwards views of an embarrassing portion of the British public that were demonstrated perfectly by Windsock there.

 

It’s healthy to question things in the name of fairness, and it’s authoritarian, oppressive and, as I said, backwards, to brush it off with a “know your place” or similar bullshit. The ‘B’ word is another perfect example. No actual answers when questioned, just brusque, unintelligible, platitudinous retorts.

Of course questioning  things is  healthy  rather than being an automatic  adherent. 

 

But I also question  the virtues , benefits and desirability of the alternative.

Take the US for example, no monarchy  but lots of defacto political dynasties,  huge inequality  . I think it could be argued that monarchy is more honest about the fact that life is not totally  fair, society is not totally fair.

 

In the US  in place of an established monarchy you have substitutes and alternative justifications to explain why life is 'unfair'  .

The uber wealthy in the US can and often do hide behind the religion of the American  dream and the logic of meritocracy ie if I'm wealthy and your not I deserve it, I have earned it,  I have earned my own natural level in society.  If  you haven't succeeded  then it's because of a lack on your part.

Celebrities  and deference to people's wealth seem to replace monarchy. 

I am of course oversimpliying  but I would argue that your argument is also an oversimplification in describing monarchy as always unjust as if there is a society or system in the world that doesn't  have significant unjust elements  to it.

Get rid of monarchy and the name changes and the phenomenon  changes form and is disguised  but you still have the same fundamental  things you object to there but  arguably  harder to deal with or alleviate  as the less transparent  alternative becomes baked into the fabric of society. 

 

So to me monarchy is one of many unsatisfactory  , imperfect  systems  not  a system that is obviously much worse than the other choices.

If monarchy were to end so be it but I won't be dewy eyed about the alternatives  being better or more virtuous. 

 

Just my thoughts!

[TQR 14,384]

9 minutes ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

Of course questioning  things is  healthy  rather than being an automatic  adherent. 

 

But I also question  the virtues , benefits and desirability of the alternative.

Take the US for example, no monarchy  but lots of defacto political dynasties,  huge inequality  . I think it could be argued that monarchy is more honest about the fact that life is not totally  fair, society is not totally fair.

 

In the US  in place of an established monarchy you have substitutes and alternative justifications to explain why life is 'unfair'  .

The user wealthy in the US can and often do hide behind the religion of the American  dream and the logic of meritocracy ie if I'm wealthy and your not I deserve it, I have earned it,  I have earned my own natural level in society.  If  you haven't succeeded  then it's because of a lack on your part.

Celebrities  and deference to people's wealth seem to replace monarchy. 

I am of course oversimpliying  but I would argue that your argument is also an oversimplification in describing monarchy as always unjust as if there is a society or system in the world that doesn't  have significant unjust elements  to it.

Get rid of monarchy and the name changes and the phenomenon  changes form and is disguised  but you still have the same fundamental  things you object to there but  arguably  harder to deal with or alleviate  as the less transparent  alternative becomes baked into the fabric of society. 

 

So to me monarchy is one of many unsatisfactory  , imperfect  systems  not  a system that is obviously much worse than the other choices.

If monarchy were to end so be it but I won't be dewy eyed about the alternatives  being better or more virtuous. 

 

Just my thoughts!

Oh I hard agree, abolishing the monarchy will not solve all our ills. It’s merely one of many examples of authoritarianism and inequality. The US, as you say, proves that, monarchy or no monarchy, if you elect cunts, nothing changes for the better.

 

Still, being one pisstaking money sink down can’t hurt much, can it? It’d also be a sign of changing attitudes, and wouldn’t sit there as a festering monument to past inequalities when (hopeful) we do start working on a fairer society.

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,337]

1 hour ago, TQR said:

Oh I hard agree, abolishing the monarchy will not solve all our ills. It’s merely one of many examples of authoritarianism and inequality. The US, as you say, proves that, monarchy or no monarchy, if you elect cunts, nothing changes for the better.

 

Still, being one pisstaking money sink down can’t hurt much, can it? It’d also be a sign of changing attitudes, and wouldn’t sit there as a festering monument to past inequalities when (hopeful) we do start working on a fairer society.

I will say one thing the monarchy now is reliant on public support and goodwill for its survival . I don't  believe the monarchy  could survive a really bad monarch the way it could hundreds of years ago.

 

I believe there's value up to a point in the saying necessity is the mother of invention. 

By this I mean I think those opposed to the monarchy shouldn't  pin lots of hope on its abolition anytime  soon. 

So people should just assume its going to continue and work on creating a fairer  society alongside  that and not see the abolition of monarchy as intergrel  to achieving a better society. 

[TQR 14,384]

1 hour ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

I will say one thing the monarchy now is reliant on public support and goodwill for its survival . I don't  believe the monarchy  could survive a really bad monarch the way it could hundreds of years ago.

 

I believe there's value up to a point in the saying necessity is the mother of invention. 

By this I mean I think those opposed to the monarchy shouldn't  pin lots of hope on its abolition anytime  soon. 

So people should just assume its going to continue and work on creating a fairer  society alongside  that and not see the abolition of monarchy as intergrel  to achieving a better society. 

Whilst abolition still looks unlikely in the near future, and I agree it’s not the most pressing issue when it comes to achieving said fairer society, there will come a point where retaining the monarchy will simply undermine the push for equality. As attitudes continue to change as they have been, the monarchy becoming redundant will eventually be a given, and hopefully it won’t be so contentious an issue then as it may be now.

 

I like discussing the world’s issues with people like you, not always agreeing but always staying constructive and making salient, interesting points 

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,337]

21 minutes ago, TQR said:

Whilst abolition still looks unlikely in the near future, and I agree it’s not the most pressing issue when it comes to achieving said fairer society, there will come a point where retaining the monarchy will simply undermine the push for equality. As attitudes continue to change as they have been, the monarchy becoming redundant will eventually be a given, and hopefully it won’t be so contentious an issue then as it may be now.

 

I like discussing the world’s issues with people like you, not always agreeing but always staying constructive and making salient, interesting points 

Thank you for your kind words in your last paragraph and I apply the same sentiments towards you. 

Currently the royals family and the Queen  have approval ratings that most politicians would be very envious  of.

How much of that popularity  and approval for the monarchy is about the Queen personally  will be something we can't be sure about until the end of the second Elizabethen  era.  It will be interesting to see.

I do think the royal family in future will be more scandinavian  in style and less grand. That will help their popularity and good will towards them.

At the moment  neither of the major political  parties of government  support abolishing the monarchy.  That would need to change for your hopes to be realised. 

 

And I will end my post by staying on topic and saying God save the Queen!! God save the Queen!!

[MrWonderful 480]

7 hours ago, TQR said:

Oh I hard agree, abolishing the monarchy will not solve all our ills. It’s merely one of many examples of authoritarianism and inequality. The US, as you say, proves that, monarchy or no monarchy, if you elect cunts, nothing changes for the better.

 

Still, being one pisstaking money sink down can’t hurt much, can it? It’d also be a sign of changing attitudes, and wouldn’t sit there as a festering monument to past inequalities when (hopeful) we do start working on a fairer society.

As an American, I genuinely laughed out loud when reading this.  And you're certainly correct.  But as George Carlin once pointed out, these cunts are the best that America has to offer, as scary as that is to think about.  As he said, these politicians don't fall out of the sky, or pass through some membrane from a different reality; they come from American schools, churches, businesses, etc, and they are elected by American citizens.  In other words, the public deserves a lot of the blame and sucks.   

 

As far as the monarchy is concerned, it would seem to me that Charles will likely receive a lot of sympathy from the British public when his mother passes, and I'm pretty sure that William is quite popular, right?  Beyond that, who knows.  Who knows what the sentiment will be as William gets older and we're into the next generation.  

[Luniz 7]

Why the Internet Is So Convinced That Queen Elizabeth Is Secretly Dead (msn.com)

[TheCemetaryMan 53]

I have a good feeling most countries will become Independent from the Monarchy once she kicks the can. 
I for one welcome it - They do nothin for us. 

They can all be wiped out. 
The only one I cared for was Princess Diana because she actually did humanitarian work. 

Charles, Prince of Wanker & Camilla, Duchess of Cuntwall needs to go 6 FT under. 

[QuebecCityOliver 26]

There is no reason to assume that any other country will drop the queen (Barbados just did) after the queen dies. After she dies, maybe more will become republics but I remain unconvinced that many will do it. And I say this as a committed republican.

 

Diana was the least bad but she could have done more.

[TheCemetaryMan 53]

4 hours ago, QuebecCityOliver said:

 

 

Diana was the least bad but she could have done more.

Well she would have if well she was still alive. 

[Windsor 2,233]

On 20/01/2022 at 00:41, TheCemetaryMan said:

I have a good feeling most countries will become Independent from the Monarchy once she kicks the can. 
I for one welcome it - They do nothin for us. 

They can all be wiped out. 
The only one I cared for was Princess Diana because she actually did humanitarian work. 

Charles, Prince of Wanker & Camilla, Duchess of Cuntwall needs to go 6 FT under. 

 

The only reason you liked Diana is because she made things happen in your trousers...possibly even when she was alive too.

[The Old Crem 3,580]

I feel like that it is quite possible that by 2040 the only countries sharing a monarch with the UK will be Canada, New Zealand and maybe Australia. All the others might slowly become republics following on from Barbados. 

[Windsor 2,233]

11 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

I feel like that it is quite possible that by 2040 the only countries sharing a monarch with the UK will be Canada, New Zealand and maybe Australia. All the others might slowly become republics following on from Barbados. 

So they should.

 

They don’t deserve our wonderful monarchy.